For all of the acknowledgment and emphasis on modeling, however, there
has not been a clear and shared perspective on exactly what NLP
modeling is, nor an awareness that there are different varieties of
modeling.

For some, modeling is essentially strategy elicitation. For others it
simply means using NLP distinctions when describing some phenomenon.
Others perceive modeling as the imitation of key behaviors.

The most powerful and generative models are those which capture
something of the deep structure of the individual or individuals being
observed. This is quite different than describing or imitating surface
level behaviors. Reaching this deep structure has been one of the
crowning achievements of NLP and requires a special methodology.

In the following article, John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St. Clair lay
out a set of criteria for distinguishing between the unique form of
modeling from which the initial techniques and distinctions of NLP were
derived ("NLP modeling") from other forms of modeling that apply
NLP distinctions but use other means of information gathering and
pattern fining.

The distinction presented in this article is a result of several
ongoing discussions we have been having about the system of knowledge
(or "epistemology") of NLP. While different forms of modeling may
be useful and even necessary in order address particular contexts or to
reach particular outcomes, the distinction and criteria John and Carmen
are proposing feel to me to be essential in order to more clearly
establish and honor what is unique to NLP as a field as well as to
respect its intellectual history.

I admit that my own modeling work frequently falls into the category
that John and Carmen refer to as Analytic Modeling, and at other times
applies a combination of Analytic and more pure NLP Modeling. I fully
support John and Carmen in making this differentiation and believe it
is vital that practitioners of NLP learn the unique form of NLP
Modeling and understand its difference from Analytic Modeling.

As John and Carmen state, the distinction presented in this article are
intended to be the beginning of a conversation for those committed to
the field of NLP, an ongoing and hopefully fruitful conversation, to
bring greater clarity, precision and understanding about the truly
unique contributions of NLP.

As Gregory Bateson used to say, "Let it be heard."

Robert Dilts

A Proposed Distinction for Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)

The development of any discipline, and especially one still organizing
its initial patterning requires a certain attentiveness to precision in
its fundamental vocabulary. Older disciplines have either clarified
their fundamental terms (once or repetitively) and have established an
apparent relatively stable platform on which further investigations and
professional dialogue may be based.or they have fallen upon the sharp
points that often protrude from their ill-defined terms, suffering
debilitating and sometimes even fatal wounds that have precluded
significant further development. Such ill-defined distinctions sway in
the wind, impaled on these sticking points.

Some care must be given in making determinations with respect to a
standardized vocabulary. In general, distinctions in experiences are
awarded distinct descriptive terms while notional variants are assigned
to equivalence classes. This is the normal business of a discipline
during its formative stages: to achieve a richness of distinctions, a
descriptive precision and simultaneously an economy of expression; in
an ideal world, at any rate.

The distinction in question in this note is the term modeling as used
in the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). In particular, the
distinction between modeling as practiced in the field of NLP and
modeling as practiced more generally.

NLP Modeling, in the creation of the initial models that founded the
field of NLP, at present and in the future of NLP, references an
appreciation of and respect for two criteria that apply to modeling in
NLP:

1.      the suspension of any taxonomic and/or analytic attempt (all f2
transforms as described in Whispering in the Wind, see
www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com)   to understand consciously the
patterning of the genius or model of excellence during the assimilation
stage of patterning and until the following criterion is met

2.      the modeler must demonstrate the ability to reproduce the patterning
of the
model in parallel contexts and in such contexts elicit roughly the same
responses from client with roughly the same quality and time
commitment as the original genius or model of excellence prior to
beginning
the challenging and rewarding activity of codification of the
patterning
demonstrated by the modeler

We further note that all modeling work products failing to meet these
criteria are to be classified as some other logical type of model -
we suggest Analytic Modeling as a general term for such work products;
employing the patterning and the distinctions available in the
technology of NLP applications but failing to respect the definition of
NLP modeling.

It is also quite clear that there are applications (e.g. modeling a
story teller) or contexts (e.g. the model is not available, deceased)
in which the rather more extended and demanding commitment implied by
NLP modeling may not be either applicable or the most efficacious or
efficient strategy for explicating the patterning of a genius or
extraordinary individual whose patterning is of interest. We intend
this statement to be a recognition that there are other forms of
modeling perfectly legitimate as strategies for learning which,
nevertheless fail to meet the criteria that we are proposing defines
NLP modeling.

The essential difference of consequence between the process of NLP
modeling and Analytic modeling is the relative contributions of the
model and modeler to the final work product. This difference resides
principally in the degree of imposition of the perceptual and analytic
categories of the modeler during the modeling process. - in the case of
NLP modeling, the imposition is minimal; in the case of Analytic
modeling, the imposition is maximal. These two extremes define a
continuum of possibilities and  it may well be that other practitioners
of other forms of modeling may wish to propose further distinctions. We
would welcome such refinements but at present will content ourselves
with the one proposed here.

The requirements that the development of all cognitive representations
be systematically suspended during the unconscious assimilation phase
and the requirement that the modeler demonstrate the ability to perform
as does the origin model or genius prior to beginning any cognitive
coding describes the source of these profound differences.

The intention behind this description is to ensure that this
distinction - arguable the most revolutionary contribution of NLP -
is preserved and that by the systematic use of this distinction, the
public may appreciate the differences between the two logical classes
of models and the distinctive processes of modeling thereby implied:
NLP modeling and Analytic modeling. We invite well-intentioned
practitioners of NLP to join us in preserving the distinction herein
proposed or to offer commentary about how such an essential distinction
can be preserved in the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming..

We further invite members of the NLP community who are considering
participating in  courses presenting modeling to request clarification
of the type of modeling being presented. Such activity will ensure that
the distinction is maintained in the field and that participants in
courses will be able to determine whether the type of modeling is what
they wish to master.

Carmen Bostic St. Clair

John Grinder